Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <u11dvo$286fa$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:12 on Mon, 10 Apr
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> Let's suppose a UK pension/investment fund is constrained to invest
>>>> only in listed companies, and wants to have a proportion of its
>>>> long-term investments in new industries. It defines these as:
>>>>
>>>> AI Software
>>>> Autonomous vehicle technology
>>>> Batteries for electric vehicles
>>>> Biotechnology
>>>> Computer hardware
>>>> Electric vehicle manufacture
>>>> Games software
>>>> Light rail vehicle manufacture
>>>> Microchip design
>>>> Microchip manufacture
>>>> Mobile phones and smart watches
>>>> Robotics
>>>> Satellite launching
>>>> Satellite manufacturing
>>>> Smart hardware for home use
>>>> Social media
>>>> Virtual reality
>>>> Wind turbine manufacturers
>>>>
>>>> Which listed UK companies do you suggest they invest in to get this
>>>> exposure? I don't think there are many.
>>>>
>>>> [I'm not asking for your view on whether these are good sectors to invest in.]
>>>
>>> Games software is apparently something the UK excels in, at least in
>>> terms of getting the work done. I haven't looked to see if those
>>> companies are listed, or where.
>>
>> I suggest you check.
>
> Usenet etiquette is that if you have a point to make, you produce the
> data.

Well, I couldn't find any.

Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/04/2023 10:45, Mike Humphrey wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 07:38:03 +0000, Muttley wrote:
>>> You missed the point. The EEC never required free movement, it was
>>> nothing more that free trade of goods, not people.
>>
>>
>> Treaty of Rome, 1957
>>
>> TITLE III — The Free Movement of Persons, Services and Capital
>> Chapter 1 — Workers
>>
>> Article 48
>>
>> 1. The free movement of workers shall be ensured within the Community not
>> later than at the date of the expiry of the transitional period.
>>
>> 2. This shall involve the abolition of any discrimination based on
>> nationality between workers of the Member States, as regards employment,
>> remuneration and other working conditions.
>>
>> 3. It shall include the right, subject to limitations justified by
>> reasons of public order, public safety and public health:
>>
>> (a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
>>
>> (b) to move about freely for this purpose within the territory of Member
>> States;
>>
>> (c) to stay in any Member State in order to carry on an employment in
>> conformity with the legislative and administrative provisions governing
>> the employment of the workers of that State; and
>>
>> (d) to live, on conditions which shall be the subject of implementing
>> regulations to be laid down by the Commission, in the territory of a
>> Member State after having been employed there.
>
>
> That is about workers with jobs; the UK took things further, and faster,
> than most other countries.
>
> And realistically, remain was only going offer more "silence, racist
> proletarians!" rather than "maybe we do need more houses - and perhaps
> to think about whether there are long term consequences to importing
> labour rather than training people"

But hasn't net immigration actually gone up since Brexit?

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:03:47 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>>>>> the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>>>>
>>>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>>>>
>>> Yes. We are accepting their sub -standard food.
>>>
>>
>> Such as?
>>
> Chicken which has been washed in disinfectant because of the poorer
> animal hygiene standards in the USA causing more risk of bacterial
> contamination.
> https://www.soilassociation.org/causes-campaigns/top-10-risks-from-a-uk-us-trade-deal/what-is-chlorinated-chicken/?gclid=CjwKCAjw586hBhBrEiwAQYEnHf-9C87Mt2QckO_5GC3BCLq27iyFTuX_ZADQK_zeoRcqd2EDjJSIchoCIt4QAvD_BwE
> [https://tinyurl.com/9ccjratf]
>
> That isn't going to be an efficient measure for contamination within
> the flesh rather than on the surface.
>

But that hasn't actually been allowed, has it? Nor is there any prospect
of it.

And is there any actual evidence that Americans suffer from that extra
cleaning step, which we use on our veg, anyway?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:56:11 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> How does leaving the EU weaken NATO? Do take your time.
>>
>> It's pretty obvious: the EU is more likely to form a defensive alliance in
>
> An EU army has always been a joke and nothing has changed in that respect.

Neil, check your facts.

>
>> Of course, Putin's calculation went awry when he gave NATO the best reason
>> to both expand and unite that it had had in decades.
>
> Quite. NATO is in rude health.
>
>

It wasn't till Putin invaded Ukraine.

On 10/04/2023 21:06, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:58:12 +0100
> Alan Jones <ajnews@exospan.com> wrote:
>> My point is that they could indeed have been powerful independent
>> nations, and there are always some who campaign fxor it, but they choose
>> not to go down that path. Are they wrong? Did they fare better as part
>> of the USA, or worse?
>
> They "choose" not to because the US navy parked gunboats in the pacific
> and made its point quite well. Washington wanted the riches and the
> nascent california was in no state to resist.
>
>> impediment to further EU integration, but for Scotland and N Ireland,
>> the cultural similarities don't matter, so long as they can take back
>> control from London and determine their own future.
>
> Except neither would be able to join the EU for a very long time unless
> the EU changed its acceptance conditions.

I don't know if they would want to join the EU, what is your point? They
are not in the EU now.

When I said the cultural similarities don't matter, I meant that the
cultural similarities between London and Scotland/N.Ireland are not a
sufficent reason for London to oppose independence.

>> be an appetite to break states away from it. The independence movements
>> in Scotland and N.Ireland seem more popular than in any US State, so why
>> is London holding them back? Are you saying that their cultural
>
> So you don't believe in democracy then or have you conveniently forgotten
> about the scottish referendum result?

I am just wondering why London opposes independence for them? perhaps
London should welcome it, as it would give more control to England, and
stop a lot of petty squabbling over N.Ireland borders, degrees of
devolution, etc.
Whether those nations would ever vote for it in a new referendum is a
separate issue, but if London wholeheartedly supported it, it might have
more chance of passing.
So what are the advantages to London of the existence of the UK, and are
they a good thing?

>> You are right that, even now, the prevention of wars within the EU is
>> part of the reason for it seeking tighter economic integration and
>> cultural appreciation. As a UK resident, I was surprised that it still a
>> motivating factor for many in the EU, but I guess that will fade within
>> Europe over the next generation as the memory recedes.
>
> The EU didn't exist until 1992 you plank. Who and what do you think kept the
> peace in europe from WW2 until then?

I think you may have misunderstand my point. The people I was talking
about fear that without FURTHER integration (e.g. tighter economic
integration and cultural appreciation than we have now), there may be a
devastating future war started between competitor EU nations.

>
> tl;dr
>
>

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:55:38 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:12:21 +0100
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 07:34:50 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> You're deliberatly or otherwise conflating culture and economics. England
>>>> shares far more culturally with scotland and wales than it does with the EU
>>>>
>>> There isn't as much shared as you might like to think. There are long
>>
>> There's a lot.
>>
> But still not as much as you imply.
A look at some Scottish TV productions especially sit coms that may have
some humorous element in them shows some of the differences. Whatever the
audience is laughing at can appear really strange
south of the border.

GH

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:34:36 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:03:47 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> But our government won?t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process?.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>>>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>>>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>>>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn?t be subject to
>>>>>> the EU?s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>>>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>>>>>
>>>>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes. We are accepting their sub -standard food.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Such as?
>>>
>> Chicken which has been washed in disinfectant because of the poorer
>> animal hygiene standards in the USA causing more risk of bacterial
>> contamination.
>> https://www.soilassociation.org/causes-campaigns/top-10-risks-from-a-uk-us-trade-deal/what-is-chlorinated-chicken/?gclid=CjwKCAjw586hBhBrEiwAQYEnHf-9C87Mt2QckO_5GC3BCLq27iyFTuX_ZADQK_zeoRcqd2EDjJSIchoCIt4QAvD_BwE
>> [https://tinyurl.com/9ccjratf]
>>
>> That isn't going to be an efficient measure for contamination within
>> the flesh rather than on the surface.
>>
>
>But that hasn't actually been allowed, has it? Nor is there any prospect
>of it.
>
>And is there any actual evidence that Americans suffer from that extra
>cleaning step, which we use on our veg, anyway?
>
If it wasn't contaminated to begin with then it wouldn't have to be
washed. Basic safety measures involve not allowing contamination in
the first instance.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:30:05 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 21:22:02 +0100
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:06:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>>Except neither would be able to join the EU for a very long time unless
>>>the EU changed its acceptance conditions.
>>>
>>That has been contradicted several times by various national leaders
>>of EU states.
>
>And contradicted back by Brussels. National leaders don't make the rules.
>
I will stick to what the high-ups say not some anonymous "Brussels"
persons.

>>>So you don't believe in democracy then or have you conveniently forgotten
>>>about the scottish referendum result?
>>>
>>Democracy is a process not the potential colonial master's wished-for
>>one off event.
>
>I really wouldn't go down the poor oppressed scotland route if I were you
>
I wasn't, I was pointing out a standard rule applied in democracies.

>given the number of scots who owned plantations in the carribean
>
Not many. Most (as also with people in England) were at home living in
poverty. How many own slave plantations now ?

>and were >more than happy to use slave labour. Proportionately the scots
>did far more >for the empire than the english or welsh.
>
So the English and Welsh were also at it ? Have you been out and
bought enough tar brushes?

>>>The EU didn't exist until 1992 you plank. Who and what do you think kept the
>>>peace in europe from WW2 until then?
>>>
>>Greatly the same body operating under a previous name and constitution
>>along with the Council of Europe, the United Nations, the Western
>>European Union and NATO.
>
>The UN?? LOL! :) That talking shop achieves the square root of fuck all.
>What has kept the peace in western europe has been UK and US nuclear weapons.
>
What peace was kept by them being used ? I have some garlic I can sell
you to keep vampires away; it has been amazongly successful.

>If we hadn't had them the USSR would have pushed west before 1950.
>
Like their successors haven't been pushing west in the last couple of
years?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>> we
>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>
>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>> the
>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>>
>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>
>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>> the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>
> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?

Yes, of course we are. Whatever trade deals we can make with them are
negotiated with them (and if you hadn’t noticed they’re much bigger and
richer than we are so who do you think has the advantage?) and whatever we
sell to them has to match their regulatory frameworks, not ours.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:34:36 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:03:47 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> But our government won?t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process?.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>>>>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>>>>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>>>>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn?t be subject to
>>>>>>> the EU?s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>>>>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. We are accepting their sub -standard food.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Such as?
>>>>
>>> Chicken which has been washed in disinfectant because of the poorer
>>> animal hygiene standards in the USA causing more risk of bacterial
>>> contamination.
>>> https://www.soilassociation.org/causes-campaigns/top-10-risks-from-a-uk-us-trade-deal/what-is-chlorinated-chicken/?gclid=CjwKCAjw586hBhBrEiwAQYEnHf-9C87Mt2QckO_5GC3BCLq27iyFTuX_ZADQK_zeoRcqd2EDjJSIchoCIt4QAvD_BwE
>>> [https://tinyurl.com/9ccjratf]
>>>
>>> That isn't going to be an efficient measure for contamination within
>>> the flesh rather than on the surface.
>>>
>>
>> But that hasn't actually been allowed, has it? Nor is there any prospect
>> of it.
>>
>> And is there any actual evidence that Americans suffer from that extra
>> cleaning step, which we use on our veg, anyway?
>>
> If it wasn't contaminated to begin with then it wouldn't have to be
> washed. Basic safety measures involve not allowing contamination in
> the first instance.
>

Why do we use the same process on our veg if it's so terrible?

And what terrible downsides have the Americans suffered?

In any case, why the panic? It's not coming here.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>>> we
>>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>>>
>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>>
>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>>> the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>>
>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>
> Yes, of course we are. Whatever trade deals we can make with them are
> negotiated with them (and if you hadn’t noticed they’re much bigger and
> richer than we are so who do you think has the advantage?) and whatever we
> sell to them has to match their regulatory frameworks, not ours.
>

Do we actually have a US trade deal? You don't need one to trade.

On 10/04/2023 21:34, Recliner wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:56:11 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> How does leaving the EU weaken NATO? Do take your time.
>>>
>>> It's pretty obvious: the EU is more likely to form a defensive alliance in
>>
>> An EU army has always been a joke and nothing has changed in that respect.
>
> Neil, check your facts.
>
>>
>>> Of course, Putin's calculation went awry when he gave NATO the best reason
>>> to both expand and unite that it had had in decades.
>>
>> Quite. NATO is in rude health.
>>
>>
>
> It wasn't till Putin invaded Ukraine.
>

Yes, several countries were afraid that if Putin succeeded in returning
Ukraine to being just a Russian colony, they would be his next targets.
Thus they felt safer being inside NATO rather than being outside NATO.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 21:19:59 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:34:36 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:03:47 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> But our government won?t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process?.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>>>>>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>>>>>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>>>>>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn?t be subject to
>>>>>>>> the EU?s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>>>>>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. We are accepting their sub -standard food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Such as?
>>>>>
>>>> Chicken which has been washed in disinfectant because of the poorer
>>>> animal hygiene standards in the USA causing more risk of bacterial
>>>> contamination.
>>>> https://www.soilassociation.org/causes-campaigns/top-10-risks-from-a-uk-us-trade-deal/what-is-chlorinated-chicken/?gclid=CjwKCAjw586hBhBrEiwAQYEnHf-9C87Mt2QckO_5GC3BCLq27iyFTuX_ZADQK_zeoRcqd2EDjJSIchoCIt4QAvD_BwE
>>>> [https://tinyurl.com/9ccjratf]
>>>>
>>>> That isn't going to be an efficient measure for contamination within
>>>> the flesh rather than on the surface.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But that hasn't actually been allowed, has it? Nor is there any prospect
>>> of it.
>>>
>>> And is there any actual evidence that Americans suffer from that extra
>>> cleaning step, which we use on our veg, anyway?
>>>
>> If it wasn't contaminated to begin with then it wouldn't have to be
>> washed. Basic safety measures involve not allowing contamination in
>> the first instance.
>>
>
>Why do we use the same process on our veg if it's so terrible?
>
Maybe because veg is typically contaminated with sh1t unlike most of
the internals of farmed animals and birds ? Washing vegetables is
standard practice recommended by UK retailers who don't seem to
suggest that any washing has taken place on the way to the shops other
than a "postharvest rinse".

>And what terrible downsides have the Americans suffered?
>
Do they kmow they have "suffered" or are they routinely tolerating any
ill effects? Their rules on drugs are also somewhat different in that
they often allow higher doses than standard in Europe; in the case of
one retail decongestant (now withdrawn here) about 2-3 times the dose
with an accompanying number of under-25s deaths due to the cardiac
effects which didn't occur with the lower doses over here.

>In any case, why the panic? It's not coming here.
>
Not yet.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 22:43:48 +0100, Bevan Price
<bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/04/2023 21:34, Recliner wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:56:11 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> How does leaving the EU weaken NATO? Do take your time.
>>>>
>>>> It's pretty obvious: the EU is more likely to form a defensive alliance in
>>>
>>> An EU army has always been a joke and nothing has changed in that respect.
>>
>> Neil, check your facts.
>>
>>>
>>>> Of course, Putin's calculation went awry when he gave NATO the best reason
>>>> to both expand and unite that it had had in decades.
>>>
>>> Quite. NATO is in rude health.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It wasn't till Putin invaded Ukraine.
>>
>
>Yes, several countries were afraid that if Putin succeeded in returning
>Ukraine to being just a Russian colony, they would be his next targets.
>Thus they felt safer being inside NATO rather than being outside NATO.

As likely Suomi/Finland in the just-gone week... fear of becoming part
of (Greater) Karelia.

On 10/04/2023 21:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 21:15:12 +0100
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:55:38 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>> There's a lot.
>>>
>> But still not as much as you imply. Even Geordies are self-evidently
>> culturally much removed from Sarf Lundunners.
>
> Are they? Take away the accent and what differentiates them, a greggs
> loyalty card?
>
>>> The "cultures" are all just various shades of the same colour. The yanks love
>>> to be [something] american whether it be irish, italian, german,
>>>
>> Ukrainian, Russian, Mexican etc.
>
> All speaking english in an american accent.
>
>>> whatever even
>>> when most of them are 3 or more generations removed and have never even been
>> to
>>> their ancestral homelands. The only truly seperate european culture in north
>>> america is the Quebecois.
>>>
>> See above. There are significant groups of "recent imports" into
>> Canada and the USA.
>
> There has been constant immigration into the US but it started off mainly
> northern european.
>

Started off mainly Mongolian.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/04/2023 21:50, Marland wrote:
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:55:38 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:12:21 +0100
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 07:34:50 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> You're deliberatly or otherwise conflating culture and economics. England
>>>>> shares far more culturally with scotland and wales than it does with the EU
>>>>>
>>>> There isn't as much shared as you might like to think. There are long
>>>
>>> There's a lot.
>>>
>> But still not as much as you imply.
> A look at some Scottish TV productions especially sit coms that may have
> some humorous element in them shows some of the differences. Whatever the
> audience is laughing at can appear really strange
> south of the border.
>

If your really want a classic example of cultural differences, Irn Bru!
apparently north of the border it is considered drinkable. (See also
Buckfast)

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/04/2023 22:19, Recliner wrote:
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:34:36 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:03:47 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> But our government won?t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process?.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>>>>>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>>>>>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>>>>>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn?t be subject to
>>>>>>>> the EU?s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>>>>>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. We are accepting their sub -standard food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Such as?
>>>>>
>>>> Chicken which has been washed in disinfectant because of the poorer
>>>> animal hygiene standards in the USA causing more risk of bacterial
>>>> contamination.
>>>> https://www.soilassociation.org/causes-campaigns/top-10-risks-from-a-uk-us-trade-deal/what-is-chlorinated-chicken/?gclid=CjwKCAjw586hBhBrEiwAQYEnHf-9C87Mt2QckO_5GC3BCLq27iyFTuX_ZADQK_zeoRcqd2EDjJSIchoCIt4QAvD_BwE
>>>> [https://tinyurl.com/9ccjratf]
>>>>
>>>> That isn't going to be an efficient measure for contamination within
>>>> the flesh rather than on the surface.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But that hasn't actually been allowed, has it? Nor is there any prospect
>>> of it.
>>>
>>> And is there any actual evidence that Americans suffer from that extra
>>> cleaning step, which we use on our veg, anyway?
>>>
>> If it wasn't contaminated to begin with then it wouldn't have to be
>> washed. Basic safety measures involve not allowing contamination in
>> the first instance.
>>
>
> Why do we use the same process on our veg if it's so terrible?
>
> And what terrible downsides have the Americans suffered?
>
> In any case, why the panic? It's not coming here.

Yet…
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/04/2023 20:12, Charles Ellson wrote:
> The EU was and remains a voluntary union unlike the previous
> Yugoslavia and USSR or the UK.

A 'voluntary' union even though many lies were told to get countries
like the UK to 'join' and they try to block anyone leaving.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 21:19:59 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:34:36 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:03:47 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But our government won?t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process?.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>>>>>>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>>>>>>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>>>>>>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn?t be subject to
>>>>>>>>> the EU?s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>>>>>>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. We are accepting their sub -standard food.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such as?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Chicken which has been washed in disinfectant because of the poorer
>>>>> animal hygiene standards in the USA causing more risk of bacterial
>>>>> contamination.
>>>>> https://www.soilassociation.org/causes-campaigns/top-10-risks-from-a-uk-us-trade-deal/what-is-chlorinated-chicken/?gclid=CjwKCAjw586hBhBrEiwAQYEnHf-9C87Mt2QckO_5GC3BCLq27iyFTuX_ZADQK_zeoRcqd2EDjJSIchoCIt4QAvD_BwE
>>>>> [https://tinyurl.com/9ccjratf]
>>>>>
>>>>> That isn't going to be an efficient measure for contamination within
>>>>> the flesh rather than on the surface.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that hasn't actually been allowed, has it? Nor is there any prospect
>>>> of it.
>>>>
>>>> And is there any actual evidence that Americans suffer from that extra
>>>> cleaning step, which we use on our veg, anyway?
>>>>
>>> If it wasn't contaminated to begin with then it wouldn't have to be
>>> washed. Basic safety measures involve not allowing contamination in
>>> the first instance.
>>>
>>
>> Why do we use the same process on our veg if it's so terrible?
>>
> Maybe because veg is typically contaminated with sh1t unlike most of
> the internals of farmed animals and birds ? Washing vegetables is
> standard practice recommended by UK retailers who don't seem to
> suggest that any washing has taken place on the way to the shops other
> than a "postharvest rinse".
>
>> And what terrible downsides have the Americans suffered?
>>
> Do they kmow they have "suffered" or are they routinely tolerating any
> ill effects? Their rules on drugs are also somewhat different in that
> they often allow higher doses than standard in Europe; in the case of
> one retail decongestant (now withdrawn here) about 2-3 times the dose
> with an accompanying number of under-25s deaths due to the cardiac
> effects which didn't occur with the lower doses over here.
>
>> In any case, why the panic? It's not coming here.
>>
> Not yet.
>

The last thing we need is any increase in US food culture over here. What
we already have is the main contributor to obesity etc. The US has huge
amounts of cheap industrially produced food that it needs to get consumed
by the population. It’s very noticeable that in European countries that
have yet to embrace junk food and still eat traditional foods the
population isn’t fat. I saw very few fat people in my trip to Poland last
year.

On 11/04/2023 08:11, MB wrote:
> On 10/04/2023 20:12, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> The EU was and remains a voluntary union unlike the previous
>> Yugoslavia and USSR or the UK.
>
>
> A 'voluntary' union even though many lies were told to get countries
> like the UK to 'join' and they try to block anyone leaving.

Rubbish
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/04/2023 20:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:30:00 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <u11ajq$27m8e$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:39:38 on Mon, 10 Apr
>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:47:15 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> That's missing the point too, which is that few Brits had their nose out
>>>> of joint as a result of EU federalism.
>>>
>>> You might want to be part of a federal europe, I don't.
>>
>> But you are very much in the minority, when it comes to that.
>
> Not in the UK I'm not.
>
>>> I feel no connection to any country beyond the channel.
>>
>> More fool you.
>
> Not really. I like europe, I'm here now. But I'm not going to pretend I
> have much in common with the workshy entitled french, the hysterical
> medittereaneans or any of eastern europe. Perhaps there's more of a link
> with the low countries or germany but its tenuous at best.
>
>>> So just like every UK election then.
>>
>> The referendum was especially egregious, and more to the point we didn't
>> get to have a second vote 4 or 5yrs later.
>
> Why should we have? Just because people like you didn't like the result?
> I bet you wouldn't be whinging about no 2nd vote if remain had won.
>
No but the Tory extreme right would be demanding a second poll just like
they are in Scotland.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/04/2023 22:19, Recliner wrote:
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:34:36 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:03:47 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But our government won?t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process?.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>>>>>>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>>>>>>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>>>>>>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn?t be subject to
>>>>>>>>> the EU?s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>>>>>>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. We are accepting their sub -standard food.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such as?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Chicken which has been washed in disinfectant because of the poorer
>>>>> animal hygiene standards in the USA causing more risk of bacterial
>>>>> contamination.
>>>>> https://www.soilassociation.org/causes-campaigns/top-10-risks-from-a-uk-us-trade-deal/what-is-chlorinated-chicken/?gclid=CjwKCAjw586hBhBrEiwAQYEnHf-9C87Mt2QckO_5GC3BCLq27iyFTuX_ZADQK_zeoRcqd2EDjJSIchoCIt4QAvD_BwE
>>>>> [https://tinyurl.com/9ccjratf]
>>>>>
>>>>> That isn't going to be an efficient measure for contamination within
>>>>> the flesh rather than on the surface.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that hasn't actually been allowed, has it? Nor is there any prospect
>>>> of it.
>>>>
>>>> And is there any actual evidence that Americans suffer from that extra
>>>> cleaning step, which we use on our veg, anyway?
>>>>
>>> If it wasn't contaminated to begin with then it wouldn't have to be
>>> washed. Basic safety measures involve not allowing contamination in
>>> the first instance.
>>>
>>
>> Why do we use the same process on our veg if it's so terrible?
>>
>> And what terrible downsides have the Americans suffered?
>>
>> In any case, why the panic? It's not coming here.
>
> Yet…

There's no prospect of it coming here.

On 10 Apr 2023 at 11:34:34 PM EEST, "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <u11dvo$286fa$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:12 on Mon, 10 Apr
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>> Let's suppose a UK pension/investment fund is constrained to invest
>>>>> only in listed companies, and wants to have a proportion of its
>>>>> long-term investments in new industries. It defines these as:
>>>>>
>>>>> AI Software
>>>>> Autonomous vehicle technology
>>>>> Batteries for electric vehicles
>>>>> Biotechnology
>>>>> Computer hardware
>>>>> Electric vehicle manufacture
>>>>> Games software
>>>>> Light rail vehicle manufacture
>>>>> Microchip design
>>>>> Microchip manufacture
>>>>> Mobile phones and smart watches
>>>>> Robotics
>>>>> Satellite launching
>>>>> Satellite manufacturing
>>>>> Smart hardware for home use
>>>>> Social media
>>>>> Virtual reality
>>>>> Wind turbine manufacturers
>>>>>
>>>>> Which listed UK companies do you suggest they invest in to get this
>>>>> exposure? I don't think there are many.
>>>>>
>>>>> [I'm not asking for your view on whether these are good sectors to invest in.]
>>>>
>>>> Games software is apparently something the UK excels in, at least in
>>>> terms of getting the work done. I haven't looked to see if those
>>>> companies are listed, or where.
>>>
>>> I suggest you check.
>>
>> Usenet etiquette is that if you have a point to make, you produce the
>> data.
>
> Well, I couldn't find any.

The most commonly cited success story - Rockstar North, of Grand Theft Auto
fame (and in its former guise, DMA Design, of the incomparably superior
Lemmings) - is a subsidiary of Rockstar Games Inc., a New York based publisher
and itself a subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive, a New York holding company.

Traveller's Tales (Lego Star Wars, in the past some of the Sonic franchise) is
a subsidiary of TT Games which is a subsidiary of Warner Brothers (probably
don't need to say they're US.)

Codemasters are apparently still going, 'famous' for Colin McRae Rally and
Brian Lara Cricket - and are a subsidiary of Electronic Arts (US, of course.)

Sony Studios (Playstation London) is unsurprisingly a subsidary of Sony
(Japan.)

Sports Interactive (Football Manager, Championship Manager) is a subsidiary of
Sega (Japan.)

Core Design (Tomb Raider at al) were part of Suare-Enix when they were
successful (Japan) but went out of business after being acquired by UK outfit
Rebellion. Rebellion appears to have an 'eclectic' stable in the grand
tradition of British entrepeneurship, ranging from Whitaker's Almanac to a
comic book, and appears to be mostly a place where things go to die.

Rare (once upon a time 'Ultimate Play the Game') is a subsidiary of XBox Game
Studios (US).

Eurocom (quite a few games you'd have heard of, some of the Mortal Kombat
games, more recently Pirates of the Caribbean) was a private UK developer.
Naturally, it went bankrupt a decade ago.

Criterion (Burnout, Need for Speed) is a subsidiary of Electronic Arts (US).

That covers off most of the majors I think.

Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2023 at 11:34:34 PM EEST, "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <u11dvo$286fa$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:12 on Mon, 10 Apr
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> Let's suppose a UK pension/investment fund is constrained to invest
>>>>>> only in listed companies, and wants to have a proportion of its
>>>>>> long-term investments in new industries. It defines these as:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AI Software
>>>>>> Autonomous vehicle technology
>>>>>> Batteries for electric vehicles
>>>>>> Biotechnology
>>>>>> Computer hardware
>>>>>> Electric vehicle manufacture
>>>>>> Games software
>>>>>> Light rail vehicle manufacture
>>>>>> Microchip design
>>>>>> Microchip manufacture
>>>>>> Mobile phones and smart watches
>>>>>> Robotics
>>>>>> Satellite launching
>>>>>> Satellite manufacturing
>>>>>> Smart hardware for home use
>>>>>> Social media
>>>>>> Virtual reality
>>>>>> Wind turbine manufacturers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which listed UK companies do you suggest they invest in to get this
>>>>>> exposure? I don't think there are many.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [I'm not asking for your view on whether these are good sectors to invest in.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Games software is apparently something the UK excels in, at least in
>>>>> terms of getting the work done. I haven't looked to see if those
>>>>> companies are listed, or where.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you check.
>>>
>>> Usenet etiquette is that if you have a point to make, you produce the
>>> data.
>>
>> Well, I couldn't find any.
>
> The most commonly cited success story - Rockstar North, of Grand Theft Auto
> fame (and in its former guise, DMA Design, of the incomparably superior
> Lemmings) - is a subsidiary of Rockstar Games Inc., a New York based publisher
> and itself a subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive, a New York holding company.
>
> Traveller's Tales (Lego Star Wars, in the past some of the Sonic franchise) is
> a subsidiary of TT Games which is a subsidiary of Warner Brothers (probably
> don't need to say they're US.)
>
> Codemasters are apparently still going, 'famous' for Colin McRae Rally and
> Brian Lara Cricket - and are a subsidiary of Electronic Arts (US, of course.)
>
> Sony Studios (Playstation London) is unsurprisingly a subsidary of Sony
> (Japan.)
>
> Sports Interactive (Football Manager, Championship Manager) is a subsidiary of
> Sega (Japan.)
>
> Core Design (Tomb Raider at al) were part of Suare-Enix when they were
> successful (Japan) but went out of business after being acquired by UK outfit
> Rebellion. Rebellion appears to have an 'eclectic' stable in the grand
> tradition of British entrepeneurship, ranging from Whitaker's Almanac to a
> comic book, and appears to be mostly a place where things go to die.
>
> Rare (once upon a time 'Ultimate Play the Game') is a subsidiary of XBox Game
> Studios (US).
>
> Eurocom (quite a few games you'd have heard of, some of the Mortal Kombat
> games, more recently Pirates of the Caribbean) was a private UK developer.
> Naturally, it went bankrupt a decade ago.
>
> Criterion (Burnout, Need for Speed) is a subsidiary of Electronic Arts (US).
>
>
> That covers off most of the majors I think.
>

Thanks.

I had thought that there might still be some successful private UK games
developers who hadn't yet been acquired by a US or Japanese company. But,
even if such companies do exist, they won't be doing a London IPO.

It does seem to be a surprise to most people that almost none of the
apparently thriving UK new industries are actually part of a UK plc. The
only exception might be the biotech arms of UK pharma companies.

In message <u11uhv$2ao3j$6@dont-email.me>, at 21:19:59 on Mon, 10 Apr
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block
>>>>>>>>idea, thus
>>>> we
>>>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote
>>>>>>>on any of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>>>>
>>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by
>>>>>brussels.
>>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much
>>>>>the better.
>>>>
>>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>>>> the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>>>
>>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>>
>> Yes, of course we are. Whatever trade deals we can make with them are
>> negotiated with them (and if you hadn’t noticed they’re much bigger and
>> richer than we are so who do you think has the advantage?) and whatever we
>> sell to them has to match their regulatory frameworks, not ours.
>
>Do we actually have a US trade deal? You don't need one to trade.

Without one (and especially not a *free-trade* deal), things are much
more complicated on multiple levels.

Back in the day my friend and I (and several usefully employed locals)
made a business out of, amongst other things, being willing to export
hi-tech electronic components mainly to ex-pat radio amateurs living in
the Commonwealth. Where none of the other suppliers would be prepared to
get involved in either the export paperwork (or tangentially the inbound
currency conversions).

Fast forward to today, and two acquaintances (one in UK and one in
Germany) have both decided to cease their cross-channel mail-order
operations [exporting UK-EU and DE-UK respectively] because of the
burden of the post-Brexit paperwork.
--
Roland Perry